This article is exclusively
for Heatmap Plus subscribers.
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.

Sign In or Create an Account.
By continuing, you agree to the Terms of Service and acknowledge our Privacy Policy
Welcome to Heatmap
Thank you for registering with Heatmap. Climate change is one of the greatest challenges of our lives, a force reshaping our economy, our politics, and our culture. We hope to be your trusted, friendly, and insightful guide to that transformation. Please enjoy your free articles. You can check your profile here .
subscribe to get Unlimited access
Offer for a Heatmap News Unlimited Access subscription; please note that your subscription will renew automatically unless you cancel prior to renewal. Cancellation takes effect at the end of your current billing period. We will let you know in advance of any price changes. Taxes may apply. Offer terms are subject to change.
Subscribe to get unlimited Access
Hey, you are out of free articles but you are only a few clicks away from full access. Subscribe below and take advantage of our introductory offer.
subscribe to get Unlimited access
Offer for a Heatmap News Unlimited Access subscription; please note that your subscription will renew automatically unless you cancel prior to renewal. Cancellation takes effect at the end of your current billing period. We will let you know in advance of any price changes. Taxes may apply. Offer terms are subject to change.
Create Your Account
Please Enter Your Password
Forgot your password?
Please enter the email address you use for your account so we can send you a link to reset your password:
How an embattled energy storage project in Acton, California, is threatening faster federal permits.

One hour north of Los Angeles, the small town of Acton is experiencing a battery energy storage buildout — and quickly becoming the must-watch frontline in the backlash against lithium-ion energy storage systems. The flashpoint: wildfires.
Like many parts of California, Acton has hot summers with heavy winds, putting it at elevated risk of the kind blaze that makes national headlines. Battery storage fires, while rare, are a unique threat, with relatively little data available about them to help regulators or the public understand the risk. People in Acton wondered: Would they really be safe if a wildfire engulfed a battery storage site, or if a battery failure sparked a new conflagration?
When L.A. County blessed the first battery energy storage system project in Acton last year, developers and local fire officials said they were doing everything in their power to ensure the batteries would meet safety standards. Residents were far from convinced.
“This will turn our community into industrial hell and it’ll erase us from the face of the Earth,” Jacqueline Ayer, a member of Acton’s town council, told me. Ayer is helping lead the local fight against the projects.
I’ve now spent more than a month researching the fight in Acton. In the process, I’ve learned how much — or little — we know about when battery energy storage and wildfires mix. We’ll get to that later in this story. To be honest, debunking battery fire risk wasn’t why I spent a month on Acton. It was what happened when the fears took hold.
Feeling they’d been failed by both the regulatory approval process and the court system, the Acton project’s opponents turned to their representative in Washington, House Republican Mike Garcia. Though Garcia can’t do anything to stop this particular project, he can severely hinder future ones: As Heatmap can exclusively report, after lobbying from Acton, Garcia inserted language into the annual funding bill for the Department of Energy that would block it from implementing a new rule designed to expedite permits for federally funded battery projects.
“What we’re hoping is that [with Garcia] being at the federal level, he’ll shed some light to the people at the top,” said Ruthie Brock of the activist group Acton Takes Action, “because if the top becomes informed, it’ll trickle down to local governments.”
This is why the Acton fight is so important — it demonstrates the risk of failing to obtain community buy-in, which can ricochet in ways no one intended. The political and media environments are quick to sensationalize the downsides of renewable energy, creating a tinderbox atmosphere in which small local fights can quickly become national ones.
On some level, a fight over battery fires going national was inevitable. Across the country, from New York to Washington state, communities are revolting against battery energy storage sites coming to their backyards. Often, those opposed cite the feared threat of fires or explosions.
Fires in battery energy storage systems, a.k.a. BESS, are quite rare. According to what data is available, the number of fires has stayed relatively flat even as deployment has grown drastically. There were fewer than 10 failure events in the U.S. in 2023, and there have been even fewer so far this year.
But when a fire does happen, experts say it can be quite difficult to put out. In some cases, there’s nothing a community can do other than let the blaze run.
“There’s a lack of consensus. There’s a lot of experts out there providing guidance, and that’s something we’re trying to work on with training throughout the country,” Victoria Hutchinson, an engineer with the Fire Protection Research Foundation, told me. “[It’ll] instill some fear in the meantime we figure out the best approach.”
Information on BESS and wildfires is even less available. Guillermo Rein, a professor of fire science and the editor-in-chief of the journal Fire Technology, told me the matter has not really been studied.
“When I say [BESS are] new, I mean really new,” Rein said. “We hardly know how it works when it gets [on] fire and we don’t have many technologies that are proven to work. We have technologies that we wish will work, but proven technologies that work are very rare. That means we have a new hazard we are struggling to understand and in the meantime, we don’t know how to protect against it.”
Los Angeles County approved Acton’s first battery storage system — Humidor, a 300 megawatt project by Hecate Energy — last summer through an expedited “ministerial” process, the local equivalent of a “categorical exclusion” under the National Environmental Policy Act. Ministerial reviews and categorical exclusions are used by regulators to skip the drawn out process of an environmental review because they can reasonably predict a lack of significant impact. Joseph Horvath, a spokesperson for L.A. County Planning, gave me a statement defending the approval and stating BESS projects must meet all local and state zoning and fire codes to receive a ministerial approval.
California had identified the Acton community back in 2021 as a potential site for energy storage to protect against future power shut offs. Acton made sense because it’s close to the SoCal Edison Vincent substation, making it well positioned to connect to the grid. There was also a real sense of urgency: To achieve its goal of 100% carbon-free electricity by 2045, the state estimates it will need to install a projected 52,000 megawatts or more of battery storage. Humidor is the first of what appears to be multiple projects being planned for the area, including two more Hecate facilities according to materials on the company’s website.
Convinced that a battery boom could mix poorly with extreme fire risk, and that the county moved far too fast to approve Humidor, Acton residents sued. The county, they argued, had little reason to conclude the facility would have an insignificant impact on the environment — so few BESS projects have been approved that the county used the standards from a different kind of project — an electrical substation — to draw that conclusion. L.A. County Planning told me they chose this comparison for reasons including the “purpose of BESS and its connection to the larger network for distributive purposes.”
Rein told me that at least when it comes to the fire risk, this isn’t an accurate comparison, and that there’s not actually enough data to claim such a facility would have an insignificant impact. “I would put great efforts into making sure this facility is safe,” he said. “They can’t just say, I met the regulation, I did enough. Because it’s a new hazard.”
Many of those in Acton opposed to the project believe the approval was rushed, and claim that little information was made available to the public as it was going through the county’s process. Furious residents have told county planners that the Acton town council was not notified in advance that an approval was on its way. They testified before the county board of supervisors that Hecate held only a single public meeting to discuss what it intended to build, with little notice given to potentially concerned citizens.
In my experience as a journalist reporting on large energy projects with serious community impacts, transparency is key to getting local buy-in to build a project. For years I covered the mining industry, where innumerable decades of toxic waste spills and labor scandals have forced companies to really innovate and spend serious dough on obtaining “social license to operate,” a term developers and investors use to describe acceptance to a company’s business practices.
This, of course, differs from the YIMBY school of thought that companies and governments should eschew frustrated municipalities to pursue the overriding net good of climate action. There are certainly merits to this argument, especially when it comes to communities that won’t take yes for an answer, and we’ll be exploring case studies supporting that view in future editions of The Fight.
I’m on the fence about whether Acton is one of those cases, though. Ayer, an environmental engineer by trade, told me she supports decarbonization and wants to see climate action happen. She just wants to feel assured the technology is safe.
If it wasn’t a lithium-ion battery storage facility “I would feel comfortable,” she said. “We will shoulder some of the weight. But it isn’t right that we shoulder all of the weight.”
When I tried to talk to Hecate about Acton’s wildfire concerns and how the company had engaged with the community, a company spokesperson, Bobby Howard, declined to make anyone available for an interview citing “ongoing litigation related to the subject.” Howard provided a factbook that said only that Humidor would “meet or exceed” local and state fire codes — without specifying which codes — and detailed some of the outreach the company did, including the public meeting as well as mailers to “thousands of individuals throughout the greater Los Angeles area, including civically engaged individuals throughout Acton.”
Howard declined to answer questions requesting more information about the company’s public outreach and wildfire planning. He did tell the Los Angeles Times earlier this year that Humidor would have “seismic bracing, safety zones around the perimeter, substantial setbacks from parcel boundaries, gravel breaks and a masonry wall around the facility.”
Stanford University senior research scholar and legal energy expert Michael Wara explained to me that in cases like these, having buy-in from the community is important to avoiding litigation and social blowback. “That is losing,” Wara said. “You have not served your client if you end up in litigation.”
“Having a process by which people are informed about a project and have an opportunity to provide input is important for buy-in for all kinds of projects related to the energy transition if you want to build in a democratic society,” he said. “Is it really the fire risk the community is concerned about?”
When it comes to the Acton battery fight, it’s the fears of fire that scare me the most, not the fire itself.
I sought reasons to be optimistic about putting battery energy storage in areas like Acton that are prone to wildfire because, well, California is essentially one big fire risk zone. James Campbell, a wildfire policy expert at the Federation of American Scientists, told me that battery energy storage decreases net wildfire risk compared to gas storage tanks and pipelines. “If we consider the whole-climate trade-offs, battery systems are much safer,” he said.
On its end, Hecate claimed in a letter to the L.A. County Board of Supervisors that a BESS fire has never traveled off-site, and that because the fires are fueled by flammable gasses, there is minimal risk of embers traveling elsewhere and igniting grass or bushes. The company pointed me to this letter when I reached out for comment.
“Nothing about fire risk mitigation is about certainty. It’s more, risk mitigation and fire is kind of like wearing a seatbelt,” Wara told me. “If you’re going 120 miles an hour down the highway and you get in a high-speed collision, your seatbelt will not save you. [But] there’s rapid advances in how these systems work.”
In the end, he added, meeting California’s carbon emissions targets will “probably mean building somewhere that there is non-trivial wildfire risk.”
What’s happening to offshore wind should be a cautionary tale for developers considering whether sinking time and money into community relations is really worth it: Last year, coastal fishermen and beach town mayors in New Jersey joined forces with fossil fuel funding and right-wing agitators to foment a conspiracy-infused campaign against offshore wind that has truly rattled the future of the industry.
Part of that offshore wind backlash grew out of New Jersey Republicans in Congress using the pulpit of their offices and filing amendments to legislation. As Garcia takes up Acton’s cause, I do wonder whether battery energy storage might be next. November’s election makes it less likely his language hindering expedited approvals for BESS projects will make it into the final funding bill, and Garcia’s office did not respond to requests to discuss its prospects.
But regardless, it’s an ember that could become a fire of its own.
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
What would happen to Project Jupiter if the Bipartisan American Affordability and Jobs Act is passed?
One of the nation’s largest data centers is struggling under permitting woes. So let’s play a game: would the bipartisan permitting bill in Congress make the path easier, or might the federal legislation be irrelevant to large hyperscalers under development today?
Meet Project Jupiter, a mega project in southern New Mexico in Dona Ana County under development by Oracle and OpenAI, with financial backing from SoftBank and political support from the Trump administration for being a part of Stargate, a major Trump administration public-private initiative boosting AI development. Project Jupiter would be one of the largest data centers in the country if completed and currently is expected to run on a microgrid powered by fuel cells converting gas to electricity, which the developers claim will burn much cleaner than a typical off-grid gas turbine power plant.
Solving the energy side of the equation is a major hurdle for Jupiter, largely because of permitting delays and legal challenges.
In mid-September, the New Mexico Supreme Court lifted a stay it placed on consideration of the project’s state air permitting application. But on Wednesday, the Santa Fe New Mexican published emails between the New Mexico Environment Department and Project Jupiter staff detailing that independent emissions modeling showed pollution would be greater than predicted by the developers, after they had already requested permission to emit more CO2 than the state’s three largest cities combined. A final decision on the air permit was expected in November; the emails suggest the deadline may slip further. After the emails were reported, Oracle declared it would try to reduce emissions from the site by more than 30%.
At the same time, the New Mexico Justice Department is opposing the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission’s environmental assessment under the National Environmental Policy Act for a gas pipeline key to powering the project. The state’s attorneys assert the agency improperly failed to examine how the data center’s use of the pipeline would affect the environment. This week, a dozen GOP attorneys general representing states with large gas industries wrote FERC insisting they ignore the state’s protests, arguing that a recent Supreme Court ruling – known colloquially as Seven County – meant the federal government doesn’t need to look at the data centers gas pipelines are feeding when the lines are reviewed. Oracle has declared a “force majeure” over the pipeline delay. Rumors have circulated that trucks may just bring gas in for operations; company representatives told the Dona Ana County Commission this week those claims were “misinformation.”
Amidst these delays and potential legal conflicts, I’ve sought to understand whether projects like these – large data centers racing to operate within the next year or two – would be affected by enactment of the Bipartisan American Affordability and Jobs Act of 2026, a major permitting reform deal negotiated in part by New Mexico’s senior senator, Energy and Natural Resources chairman Martin Heinrich.
In Washington D.C., this legislation is exciting many constituencies, including energy industry types, policy wonks, business-friendly climate advocates. At the same time, more conservation-minded environmental groups opposed to provisions benefiting the fossil fuel industry are leaning into an argument that the legislation would accelerate a new era of gas-dominant data center construction.
Last week, I wrote about the environmentalists’ argument. I also examined the parts of the bill unlocking a new transmission build-out and requiring data center ratepayer protection. If enacted, FERC would have to require utilities to charge data centers not only for the costs of new grid upgrades but the charges incurred for using the grid, too. As my colleague Robinson Meyer has written, by forcing AI infrastructure operators to pay for both embedded and incremental energy costs, the legislation would essentially mean data centers paying both to reduce rates and build new energy generation. We’re seeing in real time what happens when you don’t deal with the transmission connection system while building new grid upgrades: companies will often opt to just build their own private off-grid fossil fuel islands. In Texas, for example, we’re seeing transmission hook-up delays lead to companies just building their own gas plants instead. This is not to say companies won’t still go off the grid if this bill passes, but it’s a serious consequence of our dilapidated energy system worth considering.
So I decided to evaluate Project Jupiter as a test case. How might the permitting bill affect this project and other big data centers at a stage like it?
For starters, let's say what the permitting bill does not do. It wouldn’t change the Clean Air Act. Project Jupiter would be one of the largest data centers in the country if completed, as well as potentially one of the nation’s biggest CO2 emitters if permitted as proposed. Nothing in the bill would affect requirements that the project adhere to national air emissions standards, so it wouldn’t affect the New Mexico Environment Department’s pending decision around the project’s air permits.
Enacting BAAJA could potentially affect this sprawling data center project in extremely hypothetical ways. It would reduce legal risks associated with future interstate gas pipelines under development expected to potentially branch out to Project Jupiter, including the Desert Southwest Expansion pipeline. It’s easy to understand in the words of Robert Pattinson in Primetime how this looks: like an easier path to expanding gas generation in this area.
On renewables, the bipartisan permitting deal would codify new permitting certainty and timeline provisions that claim to make it easier for companies to pursue solar development on federal acreage managed by the Bureau of Land Management. Project Jupiter just concluded a request for proposals to procure two gigawatts of renewable energy including solar power to meet the developers’ pledge to achieve 100% carbon matching by 2031 and Thiagarajan previously told the commission they’ve examined potentially getting energy from solar projects nearby on BLM lands.
But all of this is too theoretical and the case for any individual early-stage energy project too. Not to mention that we have no idea how the Trump administration would implement this certainty language, even for Project Jupiter.
To me, if people want to earnestly understand how the bipartisan permitting bill might actually affect data centers, they need to fully consider how making it easier and more transparent to hook up to the existing electric grid could reduce how much on-site gas generation is used at AI data center operations.
Delays in state permitting for the off-grid fuel cell plant have led Project Jupiter’s developers to consider what turning to the power grid would look like. In early September during a Dona Ana County commission meeting, Oracle executive vice president Mahest Thiagarajan told the panel, “If we end up in a situation where the air permit is not actually approved, I do have to work with a grid provider. Whether it is actually part of the grid or they built the grid for me could be TBD.”
“It doesn’t need to be on the grid, but I need [a] source of power to help power the data center,” Thiagarajan said.
Commission chair Manuel Sanchez replied that the microgrid plans were established in their community benefit agreement but he supported proposals requiring data center developers paying for upgrades and directly paying to reduce electricity rates for nearby residents. “It’s actually provided a downward pressure on rates,” Sanchez said, referring directly to such a policy created by the Georgia Public Service Commission.
Thiagarajan agreed. “My current plan is to continue to work with NMED [the New Mexico Environment Division] and get the off-grid site. If for any reason we have to, because I don’t have the air permit and I have to build the site, I strongly believe it has to come with me bringing down pressure to the rates. Period. I don’t think that’s a question of, I’m not increasing the rates. I actually have to come in and say, I am lowering the rates here.”
If Congress enacted this permitting bill in the lame duck, would Project Jupiter ditch plans to be off grid? It’s challenging to prove or disprove such a hypothetical. Representatives for the project did not respond to requests for comment. But we know any attempts at grid hookups without greater ratepayer protections are only leading to more conflict locally; this week, when Project Jupiter tried proposing a hook up to the grid for emergency power, the county commission fumed. Right now, the plan is still to power Project Jupiter with the gas fuel cell generation on site.
As I concluded this research, I noticed Heinrich’s office has actually promoted news coverage about what his efforts to enact data center ratepayer protections would do to Project Jupiter.
In early August, as the Senate was leaving for a summer recess, his office republished a Santa Fe New Mexican article about legislation the senator authored – the GRID Savings Act – and its potential impact on Project Jupiter. The article claimed that if Project Jupiter was unable to get its air permit, they’d be able to get power a different way under his proposal. The local news outlet also quoted an email from Sanchez, the county commission chair, stating that Heinrich’s bill “could be an avenue for Project Jupiter to fulfill their requirements if the air permit is denied.” Sanchez did not respond to requests for comment.
So I asked Senator Heinrich’s office for comment about this republished article, as well as if his permitting deal would indeed help ensure Project Jupiter was completed and came online. To conclude this story, here is their full statement:
The Senator has been clear that building big things responsibly means putting communities first. As he stated in his interview with the Albuquerque Journal, Project Jupiter botched community engagement from the start.
BAAJA is about making sure we build the energy infrastructure we need while keeping costs down for families and small businesses in New Mexico and across the country. The legislation would help get new energy generation, primarily clean energy, on the grid. By getting the energy onto the grid, states like New Mexico, which has enacted the Energy Transition Act, can continue working to ensure the energy powering our grid is increasingly clean.
The Senator has fought to ensure that growing energy demand doesn’t come at the expense of New Mexicans’ electricity bills by requiring data centers to pay for all of their associated transmission costs, rather than those costs shifting onto ratepayers. Ultimately, the Senator strongly believes that any major development, including data centers, should come as a benefit to the communities that host them, not a burden — and that starts with meaningful community engagement and real benefits for New Mexicans.
To be clear, BAAJA is federal legislation focused on energy infrastructure and grid connectivity. It does not ‘permit’ data centers. State and local government approval is still required. The Senator's legislation addresses the federal energy infrastructure challenges associated with a grid that cannot keep up with demand; it does not circumvent the state and local processes that determine whether Project Jupiter moves forward.
Media representatives for Project Jupiter did not respond to requests for comment.
And more of the week’s top news around project fights.
1. New England (and Maryland) – The Trump administration is still messing with offshore wind farms, even while trying to pass a permitting reform deal. Examining the court filings reveals why they may feel empowered to do it — and I’m not sure how this ends.
2. Columbia County, N.Y. – New York’s renewable energy permitting office has rejected an upstate solar farm on farmland as a House Democrat representing the area joined hands with the Trump administration in publicly railing against the project.
3. Cumberland County, N.J. – The Vineland data center project is impacting the sector’s reputation in the Garden State.
4. Hood County, Texas – It looks like this corner of Hill Country is going back to court over a data center.
A conversation with Harmol Samra of Host Digital
This week’s conversation is with Harmol Samra, CEO of data center developer Host Digital. I asked Samra for a conversation because his team expressed a willingness to offer candid views on the industry’s problems with social license to operate — namely, why is the industry botching this so badly? From his point of view, many could learn a lot from industrial revolutions of the past, and they should be careful not to let mega-project expansions get in the way of broader acceptance of the data center sector.
The following conversation was lightly edited for clarity.
Can you start with your experience right now trying to get permission to build and operate data centers in the U.S.?
What we do is we focus on data centers between 20 megawatts and 100 megawatts — we call them “right-sized” — that are currently energized and delivering in the next 10 to 14 months. So really focusing on the front end of that curve. To your question of social license, we’re focused on building the right-sized data centers that communities are used to seeing and have been seeing for the last 20 years. Very similar to any other industrial warehouse you would see in your community in a business park or things like that. We’re not building multi-gigawatt campuses in a community that has 20,000 people and has an overarching, overbearing impact.
On the social license piece of it, we understand that this is the base layer of infrastructure we’re building. We’re providing the base layer as long as we agree that we all want to store our data for cloud usage, we do need to train our models, we all want to interact with AI and have some imprint — that’s what we support.
On the community benefits piece, we don’t ask for any tax breaks or incentives anywhere we go. In fact, we do the opposite — in most cases we set up community benefits programs. Our data center might become operational in a year, and that’ll pay real estate taxes, but what about in between now and then? In instances, it’s been a new AI training program in high school. In other instances, it has been [people saying], “AI’s great, but using it is expensive, so what if we could provide tokens so students can learn?”
Can you give us an example of a time you were challenged in developing data center infrastructure? Help us get a better understanding of how you’ve faced this backlash yourself.
Our first site in northeast Oklahoma, in Tulsa, enacted a moratorium on data centers after we purchased a site and were going through our leasing and financing process for it. It was a bitcoin mining site we were converting to a data center, in this case. We went to engage with the community, with the city planning office, and with the city council members. Unanimously, by 9-0, we got an exemption [from their moratorium] for us to be able to go build their data center.
When we went and made our case, what we are doing in our strategy was retrofitting this site. Not really adding new load to the system. They said, “The moratorium was not put in place to capture developments like you.” It was put in place for the mega campuses. It was about walking them through our strategy with a site that has been drawing power for the past few years.
Do you feel retrofitting sites changes the perspectives of local officials?
Yes it does, because there are a couple of things you can address up front. We’re not asking for new load; 55 megawatts has been drawn to the site for the past few years. The building we’re converting has been there for years. It calms people’s fears about a new data center coming. It’s just a building that has its computers.
It becomes easier and more bite-sized to digest. Now, obviously there are no gigawatt-scale things you can retrofit.
What do you think other energy sectors can teach the data center sector from their experiences dealing with backlash?
Overarching, as an industry, we have to be net positive to a community.
Other energy sectors and players have worked with their actual impacts to the climate and to the community, and that’s what we have to learn. If you build a data center, what is the social benefit? Through jobs? Through revenue? Through infrastructure they need? It’s the point we need to hammer home.
What do you think of some of the strategies raised thus far to improve community benefits? I’ve heard some new ideas like data center dividends, and I wonder what you make of all the proposals floating out there.
One idea is tax offsets.
Let’s say you’re going to build a data center in a town with 10,000 people. They’re all paying on average real estate taxes of $3,000. That’s a total impact of $3 million that people are paying out of their pocket. Now, if that can be supplemented by having a new data center there, offsetting that entire dollar amount, that is a direct benefit to people living there. It’s a net benefit to local residents.
There’s a reason some of the impact plans we are seeing today are direct and dollar-denominated, right? We can offset taxes, pay for our own infrastructure upgrades, add new generation to the grid — wherever we build a data center, we can build a new renewable asset and bring energy back to the grid. Frankly, some of these ideas have resonated with communities.
Why do you think the data center unrest and backlash is happening, then?
I think the biggest reason we’re seeing that is that data centers are a physical embodiment of what artificial intelligence is. It’s the base asset for AI to work. There’s a lot of unease about how we perceive AI will impact our society and our lives and livelihoods, and its harder for communities to tell an Anthropic how to change their models. But they do think if they stop the buildout of a data center, they can stop the expansion of AI until we all figure out where it goes.
Some of the factual opposition in the beginning was high electricity usage that might impact people’s bills. That’s been addressed. Excess water? That’s been addressed. Noise impacts? You can put cooling equipment outside and wrap it in a way with sound barriers where it doesn’t impact.
The factual impacts, Jael, I think have been addressed. It’s more a corollary function of how people feel about AI — that with the data centers, people see a physical asset and they wonder how to stop that.